Jagat Narayan vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5846

JASMEET SINGH
Jagat Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R. Mohan, Mr. Rehan Khan and Mr. Nishant Madan, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mridul Jain, SPP with Ms. Ruby Sharma and Ms. Vedika Rattan, Advocates, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order on charge dated 09.01.2023 and formal order on charge dated 13.01.2023 in Case No. 20/2022, CC No. 28/2022, RC No. 12(s)/2021/(0532021S0012), at P.S. CBI/SCB/Lucknow in FIR No. 391/2021, whereby charges u/s 302/323/325/201/218/149/34/120B IPC have been framed against the Revisionist.

2. The brief facts of the case are:

i. FIR No. 391/2021 dated 29.09.2021 was registered against SHO Jagat Narayan Singh (Revisionist herein), SI Akshaya Mishra, SI Vijay Mishra and three other police officials on the complaint of Smt. Meenakshi Gupta (wife of deceased Manish Gupta).

ii. On 27.09.2021, the deceased Manish Gupta, along with two other people checked-in room no. 512 of Hotel Krishna Palace, Gorakhpur. In the intervening night of 27/28/09.2021 at about 12:00 am, the Revisionist, along with other accused police officers, including SI Akshay Kumar Mishra, Constable Prashant Kumar, and Head Constable Kamlesh Singh Yadav, arrived at the Hotel. Upon inquiring with the Hotel Manager (Aadarsh Pandey), the accused persons were informed that room No. 512 was occupied by three individuals from different districts of UP and Haryana. This pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "overruled by," "criticized," or "disapproved" that suggest any of these cases have been negatively treated in subsequent judgments. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, no case is identified as bad law.

[Followed]

None of the cases explicitly mention being followed or cited as authoritative in subsequent decisions, so no cases are categorized here.

[Distinguished]

None of the cases explicitly mention being distinguished from other rulings, so no cases are categorized here.

[Criticized or Questioned]

There are no indications that any case has been criticized or questioned in subsequent treatment.

[Uncertain treatment]

All cases are presented with a descriptive summary of legal principles without references to subsequent judicial treatment. Therefore, their treatment status remains unclear from this list alone. They may be considered as foundational or stand-alone legal principles without known subsequent treatment.

Summary:

All cases appear to be standalone summaries of legal principles without explicit indication of their treatment in later jurisprudence. Without additional context or references to subsequent case law, they cannot be definitively categorized as overruled, reversed, or otherwise negatively treated.]

All cases are uncertain in treatment because the list does not provide information about subsequent judicial treatment or citations. They are simply presented as legal principles without indication of how they have been treated over time.

**Source :** State of A. P. VS Rayavarapu Punnayya - Supreme Court Litta Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court Ghulam Hassan Beigh VS Mohammad Maqbool Magrey - Supreme Court Virsa Singh VS State Of Punjab - Supreme Court Mahesh Balmiki Munna VS State Of M. P. - Supreme Court Sajjan Kumar VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court Shaikh Matin VS State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court